Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mental health and substance use disorders affect approximately 20 percent of Americans and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although a wide range of evidence-based psychosocial interventions are currently in use, most consumers of mental health care find it difficult to know whether they are receiving high-quality care. Although the current evidence base for the effects of psychosocial interventions is sizable, subsequent steps in the process of bringing a psychosocial intervention into routine clinical care are less well defined. Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders details the reasons for the gap between what is known to be effective and current practice and offers recommendations for how best to address this gap by applying a framework that can be used to establish standards for psychosocial interventions. The framework described in Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders can be used to chart a path toward the ultimate goal of improving the outcomes. The framework highlights the need to (1) support research to strengthen the evidence base on the efficacy and effectiveness of psychosocial interventions; (2) based on this evidence, identify the key elements that drive an intervention's effect; (3) conduct systematic reviews to inform clinical guidelines that incorporate these key elements; (4) using the findings of these systematic reviews, develop quality measures - measures of the structure, process, and outcomes of interventions; and (5) establish methods for successfully implementing and sustaining these interventions in regular practice including the training of providers of these interventions. The recommendations offered in this report are intended to assist policy makers, health care organizations, and payers that are organizing and overseeing the provision of care for mental health and substance use disorders while navigating a new health care landscape. The recommendations also target providers, professional societies, funding agencies, consumers, and researchers, all of whom have a stake in ensuring that evidence-based, high-quality care is provided to individuals receiving mental health and substance use services.

Scripting Addictiontakes readers into the highly ritualized world of mainstream American addiction treatment. It is a world where clinical practitioners evaluate how drug users speak about themselves and their problems, and where the ideal of \"healthy\" talk is explicitly promoted, carefully monitored, and identified as the primary sign of therapeutic progress. The book explores the puzzling question: why do addiction counselors dedicate themselves to reconciling drug users' relationship to language in order to reconfigure their relationship to drugs? To answer this question, anthropologist Summerson Carr traces the charged interactions between counselors, clients, and case managers at \"Fresh Beginnings,\" an addiction treatment program for homeless women in the midwestern United States. She shows that shelter, food, and even the custody of children hang in the balance of everyday therapeutic exchanges, such as clinical assessments, individual therapy sessions, and self-help meetings. Acutely aware of the high stakes of self-representation, experienced clients analyze and learn to effectively perform prescribed ways of speaking, a mimetic practice they call \"flipping the script.\" As a clinical ethnography,Scripting Addictionexamines how decades of clinical theorizing about addiction, language, self-knowledge, and sobriety is manifested in interactions between counselors and clients. As an ethnography of the contemporary United States, the book demonstrates the complex cultural roots of the powerful clinical ideas that shape therapeutic transactions--and by extension administrative routines and institutional dynamics--at sites such as \"Fresh Beginnings.\"

Objectives. To evaluate whether the effects of the Communities That Care (CTC) prevention system, implemented in early adolescence to promote positive youth development and reduce health-risking behavior, endured through age 21 years. Methods. We analyzed 9 waves of prospective data collected between 2004 and 2014 from a panel of 4407 participants (grade 5 through age 21 years) in the community-randomized trial of the CTC system in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State. We used multilevel models to evaluate intervention effects on sustained abstinence, lifetime incidence, and prevalence of past-year substance use, antisocial behavior, and violence. Results. The CTC system increased the likelihood of sustained abstinence from gateway drug use by 49% and antisocial behavior by 18%, and reduced lifetime incidence of violence by 11% through age 21 years. In male participants, the CTC system also increased the likelihood of sustained abstinence from tobacco use by 30% and marijuana use by 24%, and reduced lifetime incidence of inhalant use by 18%. No intervention effects were found on past-year prevalence of these behaviors. Conclusions. Implementation of the CTC prevention system in adolescence reduced lifetime incidence of health-risking behaviors into young adulthood. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01088542.

BackgroundAcute healthcare utilization attributed to alcohol use disorders (AUD) and other substance use disorders (SUD) is rising.ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence and characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations made by adults with AUD or SUD.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsObservational study with retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2014 to 2018), a nationally representative survey of acute care visits with information on the presence of AUD or SUD abstracted from the medical chart.Main MeasuresOutcome measured as the presence of AUD or SUD.Key ResultsFrom 2014 to 2018, the annual average prevalence of AUD or SUD was 9.4% of ED visits (9.3 million visits) and 11.9% hospitalizations (1.4 million hospitalizations). Both estimates increased over time (30% and 57% relative increase for ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively, from 2014 to 2018). ED visits and hospitalizations from individuals with AUD or SUD, compared to individuals with neither AUD nor SUD, had higher percentages of Medicaid insurance (ED visits: AUD: 33.1%, SUD: 35.0%, neither: 24.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 30.7%, SUD: 36.3%, neither: 14.8%); homelessness (ED visits: AUD: 6.2%, SUD 4.4%, neither 0.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 5.9%, SUD 7.3%, neither: 0.4%); coexisting depression (ED visits: AUD: 26.3%, SUD 24.7%, neither 10.5%; hospitalizations: AUD: 33.5%, SUD 35.3%, neither: 13.9%); and injury/trauma (ED visits: AUD: 51.3%, SUD 36.3%, neither: 26.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 31.8%, SUD: 23.8%, neither: 15.0%).ConclusionsIn this nationally representative study, 1 in 11 ED visits and 1 in 9 hospitalizations were made by adults with AUD or SUD, and both increased over time. These estimates are higher or similar than previous national estimates using claims data. This highlights the importance of identifying opportunities to address AUD and SUD in acute care settings in tandem with other medical concerns, particularly among visits presenting with injury, trauma, or coexisting depression.

Background Use of participatory research methods is increasing in research trials. Once partnerships are established with end-users, there is less guidance about processes research teams can use to successfully incorporate end-user feedback. The current study describes the use of a brief reflections process to systematically examine and evaluate the impact of end-user feedback on study conduct. Methods The Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma- Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD among those with Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS) study was a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of trauma-focused psychotherapy versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for Veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder who were entering substance use treatment within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We developed and paired a process of “brief reflections” with our end-user engagement methods as part of a supplemental evaluation of the COMPASS study engagement plan. Brief reflections were 30-minute semi-structured discussions with the COMPASS Team following meetings with three study engagement panels about feedback received regarding study issues. To evaluate the impact of panel feedback, 16 reflections were audio-recorded, transcribed, rapidly analyzed, and integrated with other study data sources. Results Brief reflections revealed that the engagement panels made recommended changes in eight areas: enhancing recruitment; study assessment completion; creating uniformity across Study Coordinators; building Study Coordinator connection to Veteran participants; mismatch between study procedures and clinical practice; therapist skill with patients with active substance use; therapist burnout; and dissemination of study findings. Some recommendations positively impact study conduct while others had mixed impact. Reflections were iterative and led to emergent processes that included revisiting previously discussed topics, cross-pollination of ideas across panels, and sparking solutions amongst the Team when the panels did not make any recommendations or recommendations were not feasible. Conclusions When paired with end-user engagement methods, brief reflections can facilitate systematic examination of end-user input, particularly when the engagement strategy is robust. Reflections offer a forum of accountability for researchers to give careful thought to end-user recommendations and make timely improvements to the study conduct. Reflections can also facilitate evaluation of these recommendations and reveal end-user-driven strategies that can effectively improve study conduct. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581434) on October 9, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04581434?term=NCT04581434&draw=2&rank=1 .

The US Veterans Affairs mental health residential rehabilitation treatment programs (MH RRTPs) provide residential care for veterans experiencing homelessness. However, those with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders and criminal legal involvement require additional interventions to address risk factors for recidivism. We aimed to (1.1) evaluate whether the Maintaining Independence and Sobriety through Systems Integration, Outreach, and Networking Criminal Justice version (MISSION-CJ) intervention lowers criminal recidivism and improves health-related outcomes; (1.2) examine the mechanisms that impact outcomes; and (2) qualitatively assess the implementation of MISSION-CJ. Veterans participating in an MH RRTP (N=226) will be randomized to the enhanced usual care (EUC) or MISSION-CJ conditions in a hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness and implementation of MISSION-CJ, a multicomponent intervention for co-occurring disorder. Both conditions will receive 6 months of services beginning within a week of MH RRTP enrollment (duration of stay: 3 months) and continue for 3 months after the MH RRTP in the community. The veterans in the EUC group (113/226, 50%) will receive a peer support curriculum and community outreach and linkage delivered by a peer support specialist. The veterans in the MISSION-CJ group (113/226, 50%) will receive team-based (case manager and peer support specialist) care, including treatment planning, case management using a critical time intervention model to promote referrals and linkages, enhanced dual recovery therapy sessions, and peer support sessions. Assessments, including questions regarding substance use and mental health history, criminal history and recidivism risk, housing, employment, medication adherence, mutual-help group attendance, antisocial attitudes, affiliations with peers, community involvement, and treatment services received, will be conducted at baseline and 6 months and 15 months after baseline. We will use generalized linear mixed effects regression models to evaluate MISSION-CJ based on outcomes (objective 1.1). We will conduct mediation analysis to examine mechanisms of action (objective 1.2). For the qualitative evaluation (objective 2), we will use thematic analysis to identify themes. As of March 2025, 118 veterans (site 1: n=52, 44.1% and site 2: n=66, 55.9%) have been enrolled. Overall, 58 veterans (site 1: n=27, 47% and site 2: n=31, 53%) have been randomized to the MISSION-CJ group, and 60 veterans (site 1: n=25, 42% and site 2: n=35, 58%) have been randomized to the EUC group. Overall, 23 interviews for the qualitative evaluation have been completed with veterans. Veterans are continuing to receive treatment and completing follow-up assessments. The findings from this trial and qualitative evaluation will be available by 2026. The quantitative and qualitative components of this project are intended to work synergistically to reinforce knowledge of MISSION-CJ's effectiveness, implementation, and scalability. If effective, the implementation of MISSION-CJ alongside the MH RRTPs may be advantageous to address risk factors related to recidivism. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523337; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04523337. DERR1-10.2196/70750.

BackgroundHospitalizations due to medical and surgical complications of substance use disorder (SUD) are rising. Most hospitals lack systems to treat SUD, and most people with SUD do not engage in treatment after discharge.ObjectiveDetermine the effect of a hospital-based addiction medicine consult service, the Improving Addiction Care Team (IMPACT), on post-hospital SUD treatment engagement.DesignCohort study using multivariable analysis of Oregon Medicaid claims comparing IMPACT patients with propensity-matched controls.Participants18–64-year-old Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries with SUD, hospitalized at an Oregon hospital between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2016. IMPACT patients (n = 208) were matched to controls (n = 416) using a propensity score that accounted for SUD, gender, age, race, residence region, and diagnoses.InterventionsIMPACT included hospital-based consultation care from an interdisciplinary team of addiction medicine physicians, social workers, and peers with lived experience in recovery. IMPACT met patients during hospitalization; offered pharmacotherapy, behavioral treatments, and harm reduction services; and supported linkages to SUD treatment after discharge.OutcomesHealthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure of SUD treatment engagement, defined as two or more claims on two separate days for SUD care within 34 days of discharge.ResultsOnly 17.2% of all patients were engaged in SUD treatment before hospitalization. IMPACT patients engaged in SUD treatment following discharge more frequently than controls (38.9% vs. 23.3%, p < 0.01; aOR 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–3.58). IMPACT participation remained associated with SUD treatment engagement when limiting the sample to people who were not engaged in treatment prior to hospitalization (aOR 2.63; 95% CI 1.46–4.72).ConclusionsHospital-based addiction medicine consultation can improve SUD treatment engagement, which is associated with reduced substance use, mortality, and other important clinical outcomes. National expansion of such models represents an opportunity to address an enduring gap in the SUD treatment continuum.

This study tested the impacts of peer specialists on housing stability, substance abuse, and mental health status for previously homeless Veterans with cooccurring mental health issues and substance abuse. Veterans living in the US Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Administration Supported Housing (HUD-VASH) program were randomized to peer specialist services that worked independently from HUD-VASH case managers (ie, not part of a case manager/peer specialist dyad) and to treatment as usual that included case management services. Peer specialist services were community-based, using a structured curriculum for recovery with up to 40 weekly sessions. Standardized self-report measures were collected at 3 timepoints. The intent-to-treat analysis tested treatment effects using a generalized additive mixed-effects model that allows for different nonlinear relationships between outcomes and time for treatment and control groups. A secondary analysis was conducted for Veterans who received services from peer specialists that were adherent to the intervention protocol. Treated Veterans did not spend more days in housing compared with control Veterans during any part of the study at the 95% level of confidence. Veterans assigned to protocol adherent peer specialists showed greater housing stability between about 400 and 800 days postbaseline. Neither analysis detected significant effects for the behavioral health measures. Some impact of peer specialist services was found for housing stability but not for behavioral health problems. Future studies may need more sensitive measures for early steps in recovery and may need longer time frames to effectively impact this highly challenged population.

Background Adults with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders (CODs) are overrepresented in jails. In-custody barriers to treatment, including a lack of evidence-based treatment options and the often short periods of incarceration, and limited communication between jails and community-based treatment agencies that can hinder immediate enrollment into community care once released have contributed to a cycle of limited treatment engagement, unaddressed criminogenic risks, and (re)arrest among this vulnerable and high-risk population. This paper describes a study that will develop research and communication protocols and adapt two evidence-based treatments, dual-diagnosis motivational interviewing (DDMI) and integrated group therapy (IGT), for delivery to adults with CODs across a jail-to-community treatment continuum. Methods/design Adaptations to DDMI and IGT were guided by the Risk-Need-Responsivity model and the National Institute of Corrections’ implementation competencies; the development of the implementation framework and communication protocols were guided by the Evidence-Based Interagency Implementation Model for community corrections and the Inter-organizational Relationship model, respectively. Implementation and evaluation of the protocols and adapted interventions will occur via an open trial and a pilot randomized trial. The clinical intervention consists of two in-jail DDMI sessions and 12 in-community IGT sessions. Twelve adults with CODs and four clinicians will participate in the open trial to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of, and fidelity to, the interventions and research and communication protocols. The pilot controlled trial will be conducted with 60 inmates who will be randomized to either DDMI-IGT or treatment as usual. A baseline assessment will be conducted in jail, and four community-based assessments will be conducted during a 6-month follow-up period. Implementation, clinical, public health, and treatment preference outcomes will be evaluated. Discussion Findings have the potential to improve both jail- and community-based treatment services for adults with CODs as well as inform methods for conducting rigorous pilot implementation and evaluation research in correctional settings and as inmates re-enter the community. Findings will contribute to a growing area of work focused on interrupting the cycle of limited treatment engagement, unaddressed criminogenic risks, and (re)arrest among adults with CODs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02214667 . Registered on 10 August 2014.